19:56:17 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 19:56:28 RRSAgent, make log public 19:56:34 RRSAgent, make log world-access 19:57:29 nabe has joined #wai-wcag 19:57:47 nabe has left #wai-wcag 19:58:07 WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started 19:58:14 +John_Slatin 19:58:33 +Michael_Cooper 19:58:51 nabe has joined #wai-wcag 19:58:58 +??P2 19:59:12 Zakim, ??P2 is Tom 19:59:12 +Tom; got it 19:59:13 +??P3 19:59:16 Zakim, I am Tom 19:59:16 ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom 19:59:17 mute me 19:59:25 Zakim, mute me 19:59:25 Tom should now be muted 19:59:52 +??P4 19:59:55 zakim, ??P3 is Bengt_Farre 19:59:55 +Bengt_Farre; got it 20:00:04 zakim, I am bengt_Farre 20:00:04 ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre 20:00:05 +Sailesh_Panchang 20:00:11 +??P6 20:00:12 zakmi, mute me 20:00:20 +Wendy 20:00:21 zakim, mute me 20:00:21 Bengt_Farre should now be muted 20:00:28 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:00:28 On the phone I see John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), ??P4, Sailesh_Panchang, ??P6, Wendy 20:00:29 Zakim, mute ??P6 20:00:29 Becky has joined #wai-wcag 20:00:30 ??P6 should now be muted 20:00:30 +??P7 20:00:36 zakim, ??P7 is Yvette 20:00:37 +Yvette; got it 20:00:47 Zakim, unmute ??P6 20:00:47 ??P6 should no longer be muted 20:00:51 +??P8 20:00:56 zakim, mute me 20:00:56 Yvette should now be muted 20:00:59 +Becky_Gibson 20:01:00 zakim, unmute me 20:01:00 Yvette should no longer be muted 20:01:03 zakim, ??P8 is Doyle 20:01:03 +Doyle; got it 20:01:08 wendy I don't know who p6 is 20:01:19 +Loretta_Guarino_Reid 20:01:21 but they are 'in the truck' to quote david 20:01:22 +[IBM] 20:01:25 zakim, who's making noise? 20:01:28 zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink 20:01:28 sorry, Yvette, I do not see a party named 'Yvette_Hoitink' 20:01:32 MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag 20:01:34 zakim, I am Yvette 20:01:34 ok, Yvette, I now associate you with Yvette 20:01:37 zakim, [IBM] is Andi 20:01:37 +Andi; got it 20:01:40 zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink 20:01:40 sorry, Yvette, I do not see a party named 'Yvette_Hoitink' 20:01:44 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 20:01:46 Zakim, mute ??P6 20:01:46 ??P6 should now be muted 20:01:47 -Andi 20:01:47 zakim, Yvette is Yvette_Hoitink 20:01:48 +Yvette_Hoitink; got it 20:01:59 +Matt 20:02:14 +[IBM] 20:02:18 zakim, drop ??P6 20:02:18 ??P6 is being disconnected 20:02:18 rellero has joined #wai-wcag 20:02:19 -??P6 20:02:35 Hi 20:02:36 +Paul_Bohman 20:02:39 nabe has left #wai-wcag 20:02:40 zakim, [IBM] is Andi 20:02:40 +Andi; got it 20:02:49 I am not at home, I follow in IRC only 20:02:55 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:02:55 On the phone I see John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), ??P4, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, Doyle, Becky_Gibson (muted), Loretta_Guarino_Reid, 20:02:56 Hi Roberto 20:02:58 ... Matt, Andi, Paul_Bohman 20:03:01 :-) 20:03:15 +JasonWhite 20:03:18 zakim, ??P4 is David_MacDonald 20:03:18 +David_MacDonald; got it 20:03:28 +??P13 20:03:45 nabe has joined #wai-wcag 20:03:47 GVAN has joined #wai-wcag 20:03:48 zakim, ??P13 is Gregg-and-Ben 20:03:48 +Gregg-and-Ben; got it 20:04:22 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:04:22 On the phone I see John_Slatin, Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), David_MacDonald, Sailesh_Panchang, Wendy, Yvette_Hoitink, Doyle, Becky_Gibson (muted), 20:04:25 ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Matt, Andi, Paul_Bohman, JasonWhite, Gregg-and-Ben 20:04:33 it used to recognize me until I changed my phone company 20:04:36 what about Jason? 20:05:04 hmm. maybe i lied. ;) 20:05:33 +??P14 20:05:56 zakim, who's cruising Lake Mead? 20:05:56 I don't understand your question, MattSEA. 20:06:06 and behind door number 14 is... 20:06:13 nabe, did you just mute yourself? 20:07:01 bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag 20:07:01 zakim, ??P14 is Takayuki_Watanabe 20:07:01 +Takayuki_Watanabe; got it 20:07:38 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0273.html 20:07:57 issue 693: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=693 20:08:11 proposed wording: Individuals with disabilities affecting their speech or 20:08:11 manual dexterity will often have a higher error rate when communicating 20:08:11 with speech or handwriting recognition, or typing, and therefore benefit 20:08:11 proportionately more from features that assist in recognizing and 20:08:11 correcting input errors. 20:08:18 == 20:08:37 yvette's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0296.html 20:08:55 john's edit of yvette's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0298.html 20:09:03 tecks has joined #wai-wcag 20:09:07 Certain disabilities make it more difficult to operate input devices, 20:09:07 resulting in more input errors. For example, individuals with limited 20:09:07 motor functions are more likely to make errors when they operate a mouse 20:09:07 or a keyboard. Individuals with speech disabilities are more difficult 20:09:07 for speech recognition systems to understand . Features that assist in 20:09:08 recognizing and correcting errors benefit individuals with these types 20:09:09 of disabilities. 20:09:12 == 20:09:39 s/speech recognition/speech-recognition 20:09:46 discussion? 20:10:38 test 20:11:38 propose: speech rec systems may find it more diffi to understand people w/speech dis 20:11:39 +1 20:11:59 therefore, don't need hyphen (as just propsoed) 20:12:24 resolution: adopt as modified 20:12:57 === 20:12:59 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=774 20:13:07 have had some discussion on the list 20:13:33 suggestions: 20:13:36 "the content" 20:13:43 hand up this is Doyle 20:14:11 tecks, say "Zakim, I am Doyle" 20:14:20 then you can use "q+" 20:14:35 john recently suggested resource: 20:14:38 Zakim, I Am Doyle 20:14:38 ok, tecks, I now associate you with Doyle 20:14:54 what about each new fetch from the server? 20:15:05 q+ doyle 20:15:37 suggestion on mailing list: "throughout the resource" 20:15:48 ack doyle 20:16:06 we use page and we seem to know what it means. 20:16:06 q+ 20:16:13 if we use it that often, why use something else? 20:16:25 "a single document and everything attached to it" 20:16:30 if we change it, could be more confusing 20:16:46 ack MattSEA 20:16:46 ack matt 20:16:59 Gian has joined #wai-wcag 20:16:59 "resource" is commonly used term in w3c documents 20:17:09 hello - Gian here 20:17:12 most content aren't just "pages" 20:17:14 hello gian 20:17:21 q+ to say "page is very HTML" 20:17:22 sorry I'm late 20:17:28 Hi Gian 20:17:41 ack tom 20:17:42 ack Tom 20:18:01 primary issue: pick a term and use it consistently 20:18:25 ack Andi 20:18:26 q+ to say, "knee-jerk reactions to page from web app devs" 20:18:38 ack Yvette 20:18:38 Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "page is very HTML" 20:18:42 "page" loses meaning when talk about web apps 20:18:50 ack John 20:18:53 page is html-specific go for diff term 20:19:12 tried 'screen' but got same response as did for 'page' 20:19:21 then used 'resource' since was more general 20:19:22 q- 20:19:24 ack wendy 20:20:06 tehre may be places where page is appropriate, but tends to be too narrow 20:20:15 q+ 20:20:23 "throughout resource" 20:20:33 "context throughout resource" and "resource" 20:20:39 find places where 'page' is used 20:20:49 can we replace with "context throughout resource" and "resource" 20:20:55 q+ to say "resource works for 3.2" 20:21:16 q- 20:21:30 ack Yvette 20:21:30 Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "resource works for 3.2" 20:23:17 page used in several example and benefits. for success criteria: 2.4, 3.1, 3.2 20:23:31 ack jason 20:24:24 action: yvette review use of "page" in guidelines and success criteria (2.4, 3.1, 3.2). if possible, also review examples and benefits. 20:24:42 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=776 20:24:53 +Mike_Barta 20:25:20 Need to clarify "contracted?" 20:25:31 Do we need to include a definition of "contracted"? Do we need an example 20:25:31 of contracted words? Perhaps include hebrew as example in the example section? 20:26:31 ack John 20:26:40 thread began on this issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0225.html 20:26:53 "contraction" is commonly used word, but given multiple languages, we should have a definition 20:27:14 perhaps examples could solve easiest w/examples 20:27:28 q+ to say, "contracted does not have exmaples for contraction" 20:27:36 ack Loretta 20:27:41 +Kerstin_Goldsmith 20:27:45 does hebrew fall under this criterion? 20:27:46 ack wendy 20:27:46 wendy, you wanted to say, "contracted does not have exmaples for contraction" 20:28:41 example for this don't exist. This is related to 3.1 which has examples which are on a seperate thread 20:28:50 ack John 20:29:24 there are contractions in braille that represent multiple letters 20:29:28 not sure applies to hebrew 20:29:39 belief that anything that leaves things out is a "contraction" 20:30:13 two issues which are related to the examples related to this point. they need people to take them on 20:30:38 action: john continue working on examples for level 3 of 3.1 20:31:21 action: kerstin propose defn of "contraction" (issue 700) - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=700 20:31:57 action: john possibly also look at other examples for 3.1 (issues 381 and 702) 20:31:58 20:31:58 20:32:21 Issues 511 and 694 - Examples for Guideline 2.5 20:32:49 Wendy, is the live transcription service for deaf people on? 20:32:49 currently only have search engine example 20:32:53 no 20:33:03 Both Roberto Ellero and Gian are following from IRC because they can't use the phone 20:33:09 too bad 20:33:40 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=511 20:33:45 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=694 20:33:51 action: doyle propose more examples for 2.5 (issues 511 and 694) 20:34:02 Issue 565 - What is meant by "user error" 20:34:02 20:34:26 What types of errors is this guideline addressing? Is this something that 20:34:26 is a special problem for people with disabilities, or is it a usability issue 20:34:26 for all users? Also, using the term “graceful” is very subjective. 20:34:30 MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag 20:34:32 === 20:34:36 word "graceful" is gone 20:35:08 zakim, who's making noise? 20:35:08 zakim, who's making noise? 20:35:11 lol 20:35:22 zakim, who's being sucked into a black hole? 20:35:22 I don't understand your question, MattSEA. 20:35:25 zakim, who's making noise? 20:35:26 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Michael_Cooper (10%) 20:35:37 Yvette, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Loretta_Guarino_Reid (23%), Gregg-and-Ben (36%), Mike_Barta (59%) 20:35:54 MattSEA, listening for 15 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregg-and-Ben (76%) 20:36:09 q+ to say, "look at language of existing doc" 20:36:34 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#minimize-error 20:37:51 add a sentence in benefits, "these are usability problems that effect all users but amplified for pwd" 20:37:54 ack john 20:38:09 q+ to say "keep filled in data for forms with errors" 20:38:35 action: doyle add "these are usability problems that effect all users but amplified for pwd" 20:38:46 ack wendy 20:38:46 wendy, you wanted to say, "look at language of existing doc" 20:38:50 acl wendy 20:39:15 Not totally satify the issue. The phrase 'user error' could refer to many things 20:39:27 Make sure 'user error' is in a definition 20:39:28 1+ 20:39:30 q+ 20:40:11 propose that we add a definition or in some way clarify "user error" 20:41:35 action: tom propose definition of "user errors" to answer the question "What types of errors is this guideline addressing?" 20:41:45 -Kerstin_Goldsmith 20:41:56 ack yvette 20:41:56 Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "keep filled in data for forms with errors" 20:41:58 q- 20:42:01 ack Yvette 20:42:31 can we include something hat says, "if you fill out form and there is an error, keep info in form so that don't have to fill out again" 20:42:48 +??P16 20:42:56 q+ 20:43:02 ack Tom 20:43:05 zakim, ??P16 is Kerstin 20:43:05 +Kerstin; got it 20:43:22 the extra time is exactly what this guideline is trying to address 20:43:46 not that it takes more time to fill out a form, but takes more time to identify what needs fixing 20:43:47 ack John 20:43:55 -Mike_Barta 20:44:07 that's true for people using screen readers and with low vision, but if you have limited use of your hands 20:44:29 it could become real barrier 20:46:07 if you make an error and it takes person w/out a disability to recover x time and it takes pwd 2x... 20:46:22 or 6x 20:47:00 is it really an accessibility issue if doubles time for everyone 20:47:27 q+ 20:49:48 Example: task takes 1 minute for normal person, 2,5 minutes for person with screen reader 20:49:49 if you do it this way it will cost everyone additional time - thus a usability issue 20:49:59 But with a barrier in the page, it takes 2 minutes for normal person, 5 minutes for person with screen reader 20:50:04 than the barrier is a usability issue instead of accessibility because it causes everyone to be twice as slow 20:51:02 other hand: if someone who is visual can correct it in 3 seconds but someone with a screen reader takes 5 minutes, that is an accessibility issue 20:52:06 it is purely annoying or an accessibility issue? 20:52:08 q+ 20:52:18 ack jason 20:52:25 +Mike_Barta 20:52:37 make sure that whatever wording we use that it is not specific to forms and applies to user interfaces in general 20:52:42 BeckyG has joined #wai-wcag 20:52:56 automatic validation techniques can avoid some of these problem. 20:52:58 To summarise Gregg: If the error correction significantly changes the porportions of time needed to fill in a form compartively from a disabled and non-disabled person 20:53:11 then it an accessibility issue 20:53:33 ??? I lost my connection 20:53:38 if the proportions remains the same its usibility, even if the time required increases 20:53:51 ack Gian 20:53:57 I always thought accessibility was: A level- pwd could not access the info, AA-level- pwd could access the info but it took longer than for non-pwd, AAA-level- takes pwd & non-pwd same amount of time to access info 20:54:12 +Yvette_Hoitink.a 20:54:29 q+ 20:54:33 q- 20:54:51 that is a misunderstanding of the levels. it is closer to the WCAG 1.0 defn. 20:55:08 -Yvette_Hoitink 20:55:13 there was not a time equivalance 20:55:23 -Michael_Cooper 20:55:25 that's what I meant - wcag 1.0, I don't think there should be too much difference between the two 20:55:49 ack John 20:56:14 q+ 20:56:20 since gregg proposed a heuristic to determine diff betwen usability and accessibility issues, we ought to include that in the document to help other people understand 20:56:32 it's a rough measure, but it is useful for people to grasp the distinction 20:59:51 ack MAtt 21:00:20 agree that it shouldn't be a defn. when working on html techniques, wanted to include "good ideas". 21:00:37 zakim, mute me 21:00:37 Yvette_Hoitink.a should now be muted 21:00:42 let's gather good advice, e.g., time on task is not a good measure of anything since you have a wide variance. 21:00:49 brb - be right back 21:01:30 we need a straightforward guide to walk you through everyrthing, the "o-reilly version" of the guidelines 21:01:48 +Avi 21:01:58 action: matt write o'reilly version of WCAG 2.0 21:02:10 go matt ;-) 21:02:15 RRSAgent, drop action 8 21:02:22 action: matt propose o'reilly version of wCAG 2.0 21:02:30 matt waiting for more stable document before tackling 21:03:37 ack Tom 21:03:55 support difference betwen usability and accssibility 21:04:19 understand don't want to use single heuristic. EOWG has also been discussing 21:04:52 need to clearly say why some of the less-technical (and more usable) aspects of accessibility have been included. 21:06:04 action item: issues review for guideline 2.4 (~20 issues logged) 21:06:11 RRSAgent, drop action 10 21:06:43 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/navigation-mechanisms_issues.php 21:07:46 ack mike 21:08:15 action: mike summarize issues for 2.4 ( http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/navigation-mechanisms_issues.php) 21:08:18 weeeeee!!! 21:08:57 === 21:09:14 human testability: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0187.html 21:10:55 sailesh's wording: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0187.html 21:11:10 In the judgment of the working group members, success criteria can either be tested automatically or tested by humans in a manner that is capable of yielding consistent results among multiple knowledgeable testers. 21:11:16 q+ to say "that's not Charles' comment" 21:11:31 s/members/participants 21:11:38 ack Kerstin 21:11:51 In the judgment of the working group participants, success criteria can either be tested automatically or tested by humans in a manner that is capable of yielding consistent results among multiple knowledgeable testers. 21:12:32 defn of "multiple knowledgeable testers" needed? 21:12:41 ack Yvette 21:12:42 Yvette, you wanted to say "that's not Charles' comment" 21:12:57 cmn said, "we don't have to say anything about automatic tests" 21:13:12 we have defined tests that can be tested by humans in a manner that yields consistent results 21:13:24 that you can also test with computers is benefit 21:13:44 however, that is not true. there are some criteria that are only machine-testable 21:13:54 e.g., epilepsy 21:14:30 q+ to say "well technically all you would need is a human with epilepsy to sit infront of the screen" 21:14:56 ack gian 21:14:56 Gian, you wanted to say "well technically all you would need is a human with epilepsy to sit infront of the screen" 21:14:56 ack Gian 21:15:27 q- 21:15:35 that's not correct - you can never test for conformance w/user testing. the fact that *a* blind person can use does not mean that all people who are blind can use. 21:15:36 ack John 21:16:13 q+ 21:16:17 if there are some criteria that are only-machine testable, then "in the judgement of wg ps all are testable. some tested reliablty by humans. @@some are only tested automaticlly@@" 21:16:39 ack Tom 21:17:05 few issues are dangerous for humans to test. others are impracticle for humans to test 21:17:26 zakim, mute me 21:17:26 Yvette_Hoitink.a should now be muted 21:17:40 q+ "it depends on the site being tested" 21:17:58 q+ to say "it depends on the site being tested" 21:18:44 q+ 21:18:49 suggest that we say "either human-reliable or automatic" those that are impracical for humans we have instruments 21:19:03 unless you have a normalized instrument can't use in the standard 21:19:13 ack gian 21:19:13 Gian, you wanted to say "it depends on the site being tested" 21:19:20 for example, testing whether alt attributes are missing is often done by an automated testing tool - but if you have a site that is 3 pages then it would be easier just to review the code instead of using a tool 21:19:41 rellero has joined #wai-wcag 21:19:48 ack tom 21:20:05 although there are practicalities involved in testing one way or the other, doing as gregg suggested is best plan 21:20:30 zakim, unmute me 21:20:30 Yvette_Hoitink.a should no longer be muted 21:20:33 again ask if this ok: In the judgment of the working group participants, success criteria can either be tested automatically or tested by humans in a manner that is capable of yielding consistent results among multiple knowledgeable testers. 21:21:30 q+ 21:21:36 ack kerstin 21:22:02 said don't want to define " multiple knowledgeable testers" however we're going to get that question 21:22:06 people will want a definition 21:22:23 propose "7 out of 10" 21:22:42 or reusing some other usability reference 21:23:01 q+ to say "Formulation is too difficult" 21:23:02 q+ to say "is that 7 out of 10 that agree 100%? There may be differences of opinion" 21:23:02 have to go with test reliability literature 21:23:07 ack Tom 21:23:40 have different scales for different success criteria? level 3 needs less people out of 10 (e.g.,) 21:24:03 q+ 21:24:08 ack andi 21:24:10 ack Andi 21:24:20 if we use that level of specificity will get confused as a requirement 21:24:25 q- 21:24:31 when do human testability have to get that many peopel to agree it conforms 21:24:56 we didn't make any effort to figure out if that many people would agree, it was just our judgement 21:25:01 ack gian 21:25:01 Gian, you wanted to say "is that 7 out of 10 that agree 100%? There may be differences of opinion" 21:25:05 it seems quite difficult to quantify it. 21:25:29 what if they can't agree about anything? 21:25:38 it is a binary question: does it pass or does it fail? 21:25:47 you can't "half pass" 21:25:50